...because even the prospect of a 4-hour erection under the BEST of circumstances (i.e., in the presence of someone with whom I would like to exploit said erection, and who would also be thus inclined) isn't enough to let a spider bite me.
The problem isn't what the data mining companies would do with the data, themselves. I don't think it's even with what companies who buy their services would do, frankly...although I know that on Slashdot that may not be a widely-held or even popular belief. What's dangerous is that the data mining companies also provide data to the government. And why is that? Because the data mining companies collect and compile data that our government is forbidden from collecting directly without having to get legal authorization (like a warrant, for example). It's a workaround that circumvents controls meant to protect the privacy of individuals from their own rulers. Of course, I'm speaking from the perspective of someone in the USA; when it comes to civil rights, your mileage may vary.
That's odd...because many (if not most) states have systems whereby the actions in front of the car are recorded on video, and audio is captured from a microphone on the officer. The basis for this not needing a warrant is common law precedent that during a traffic stop there is no expectation of privacy...so how is there an expectation of privacy if it's the person being stopped who does the recording?
So either SSDs are really hard to erase, or really hard to recover. I'm so confused.
It's both. The internal optimization of SSDs includes, essentially, a degree of abstraction between what the computer says to do and what is actually done. With that kind of direct low-level control taken away, any task related to direct, granular control over what happens to what the computer sees as 'sectors' on a disk (but which don't really exist, since there is no such physical form) becomes unreliable. The reasons why it is unreliable differ between deletion and recovery, but the effect is the same and has the same basic root cause.
I can understand why parents would turn to police officers for some description of the threats out there. I get why they would want the people who deal with criminals to talk about the nature of the bad guys and how they operate. What I don't get is why parents would accept OPERATIONAL advice on how to behave towards their kids. The police are (duh) charged with the investigation of crimes and criminal suspects. This is a model for behavior which is unbelievably ill-suited for parenting.
Neither this law, nor the original version of it, would have retroactive applicability; in other words, you can't make something illegal today, and then prosecute the guy that did it yesterday. It's more like the early laws around computer crime, which came about not to prosecute people who had already been hacking, but instead came about because existing law didn't properly address something that should already have been criminalized, in the eyes of the legislature.
Did anyone notice that the pic of Emil Protalinski (the guy whose ZDNet article was linked in the OP) looks like it could be the mug shot of the criminal in question? Not a good pic...
He wouldn't catch flak for promoting one company (except by people with no understanding of business and the pressures on the press...) but would catch flak for naming names in the derogatory sense (especially if they're populated by overcaffeinated people with no understanding of business who are so touchy about the "S" word...).
So, helping set up an offshore call center is unethical. What about patronizing companies that have recently offshored a lot of their capabilities? Try going a day without giving business to such a company...pass up on the cheaper prices at Walmart, Target, etc. and buy only from local, American suppliers with no operations abroad that were set up as a cost savings measure. While you're at it, don't drive a car, ride a motorcycle or get on a bike.
I just find it unsettling that there's so much outcry about this on Slashdot when it comes to our jobs, but no mention of the fact that we're just the latest industry to have to face outsourcing. Where was the wailing before now?
For an entire planet...even taking into account the fact that oil consumption is growing, at a rapid rate...that isn't that much land. I almost wonder if the additional agricultural activity that would result would help offset global warming a bit (since deforestation is a factor). Of course, all of this depends entirely on the notion that this isn't all vaporware or a scam, which statistically it most likely is. Most 'deus ex machina' breakthroughs that come from small, unheard-of companies out of the blue are, unfortunately.
Great...so now there'll be lots of cheap fuel to power my Voller flying car and my jetpack that I use to go to work every day! Not to mention the cheap electricity that won't make me give up my Phantom game console...
Of course it's cheaper. Netflix is just the latest to reap the benefits of cheaper delivery via digital means. Just as email is cheaper than snail-mail, spam is cheaper (unfortunately) to send than promotional mailers, Craigslist is cheaper to post on than putting flyers up in a neighborhood...it's even cheaper to use virtual tape drives for backup, and digitally replicate the backups over WAN links than it is to send tapes via UPS, overall. The examples of this seem endless, and there are many reasons why it happens that way.
In our datacenters (I work for a major IT company) we've actually done some research on running data centers at higher temperatures overall. The funny thing that came out of this...in the attempt to figure out where the magical "65 degrees" requirement came from, we had to do a lot of digging. It turns out that the requirement came from old APC UPS systems, which mandated that environmental temperature. We're discovering that data centers can be run WAY warmer than that with no ill effect, provided you still have good airflow.
This isn't even remotely true. I've done a lot of work on data leakage (related to propietary information) in dozens of companies, all of which in the Fortune 100. Doing this kind of work from a network-centric perspective (as I did it) involves tracking the relationships between everything...every inbound and outbound packet is analyzed and cataloged. I never once saw demographic data going to Microsoft or anyone else, and certainly not with the consistency that would be present from it happening everywhere there were Windows OS variants. Does a cellular-only version do it? I don't know...but the above accusation refers to "All of the Winddows OS's", and that's extremely far from the truth.
I see where the USAF is coming from on this one. For one thing, the fact that the information has been leaked doesn't make it unclassified; it's still classified. And as someone who holds a clearance, I've been advised not to go look at the data (aside from the fact that, as a person with access to classified materials, association in any form with WikiLeaks is inherently risky career-wise). But then, when I'm reading the Washington Post, I see a link to an interesting story...and reading the whole thing, I discover that it's from WikiLeaks only because they say so in the last paragraph! It's like being rickrolled in a way; if I had known that it was a WL-sourced story, I would not have read it. Same thing on the NY Times as well. If they'd put just a precursor to the byline, it'd be fine, but instead the only way to avoid accidentally violating the code of conduct I formally bound myself to, I have to avoid reading stories that have an international-affairs, national security or war-related bend to them. This is a way for the USAF to put pressure on them to at least make it easier for guys like me to toe the line.
out of fear in Moscow that WikiLeaks is prepared to release damaging personal information about Kremlin leaders
I wonder what the basis for that assessment is. My assumption would be that they're more interested in seeing what gets disclosed to them, instead of having to wait for the information to be released like everyone else. If you take that a step farther, they can potentially figure out who is talking to them in the hopes of recruiting them (nicely or otherwise) as assets for their own "wiki", so to say. I'd actually have been surprised if the FSB hadn't been observing WikiLeaks far before now.
Actually it does, that's the whole point. You have a controlled explosion in that it goes off when you want it to, not the bomber. Additionally you have placed barricades and other protective structures to minimize the damage.
Better explanation: when the bomb squad "detonates" a bomb, they don't blow it up in the traditional sense. What they do is put what's known as a 'water charge' by it, which does contain a small bomb and a fair amount of harmless water. The water cushions the blast enough that it doesn't cause what's known as a 'sympathetic detonation' but still carries enough kinetic effec to, in essence, tear the bad-guy bomb apart without causing it to explode as the terrorist/attacker/nutjob intended.
Besides, you don't sever a bridge support by putting a small bomb near one side of it...you need two explosive charges against it, offset from each other to create a shearing effect. Those suckers are a lot tougher than they look. (Yeah, I have a merit badge in demolitions...my Boy Scout troop was a little more aggressive than most...)
The DHS defines "Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources" on this website: http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/gc_1189168948944.shtm ("Key Resources" refer to things like national monuments that, while relatively irrelevant to the operation of the nation, are nonetheless impossible to replace and likely targets of attack.)
It's not a matter of being a vendor to government, it's a matter of being an industry (not a company) where industry-wide failures would result in material impact to the security of the country due to interdependencies. If there's an impact to the petroleum products distribution infrastructure, for example, then there's no gasoline, avgas, or diesel. Trucks can't resupply supermarkets, planes can't deliver goods or passengers, and in short order, first responders (cops, firemen, ambulances) can't travel except on a very limited basis. That doesn't make the gas station a critical asset, since an awful lot of gas stations can get shut down without mucking up the works...people will just have longer lines as they go to fewer stations. But, on the other hand, the petroleum depots...well, since one of those services an enormous area...one of those is quite critical.
This bill doesn't put DHS in charge of anything at all, any more than the IRS is in charge of your finances just because you have to report income, or the SEC runs private companies because they have to comply with certain regulations to maintain transparency. What it does is mandate a NIST 800-53-based approach to securing the networks. That approach actually works pretty well, but it's a fair amount of work since you end up looking at groups of systems in terms of the processes they perform together (like a specfic database server, the middleware server that accesses it for a specific application, and the web server that provides a presentation layer for the middleware) when thinking about security.
The problem with this bill isn't the standards that it mandates, or that DHS would be the entity yelling at companies for failing to comply...it's that "Critical Infrastructure" industries, in legislative terms, refers to 17 different industries, which in combination are an ENORMOUS amount of our economy. One of them, for example, is the IT sector. Dropping a regulatory requirement like this on all of them at once, simultaneously, will be very good for people who do security consulting for a living (like me) but will be hell on the thousands of companies that will have to scramble to get into compliance.
Let's face it; he hacked the email account of a Vice Presidential candidate. Regardless of how one feels about Sarah Palin (I can't stand her myself...the things she says makes me want to slam my head in a file cabinet drawer) it's not rocket science to recognize that what he did is a bit more severe (and consequence-prone) than going after your typical person. He should consider himself lucky that he only got a year, really...I figured they'd do much worse.
When I went to click on the link, in my mind was a curious tension of expectations. Would it be like Jay and Silent Bob in "Mallrats"? Like the various teenagers in "Kickass"? Like the moderately-capable guys in hockey pads in "The Dark Knight"? Or something entirely different altogether, some wonderful and amazing surprise of how people can leverage technology and creativity as force multipliers to do good?
However, after reading this and looking at the gear, all that comes to mind is..."What a bunch of douchebags. Ugh."
Slashdot Mirror
...because even the prospect of a 4-hour erection under the BEST of circumstances (i.e., in the presence of someone with whom I would like to exploit said erection, and who would also be thus inclined) isn't enough to let a spider bite me.
The problem isn't what the data mining companies would do with the data, themselves. I don't think it's even with what companies who buy their services would do, frankly...although I know that on Slashdot that may not be a widely-held or even popular belief. What's dangerous is that the data mining companies also provide data to the government. And why is that? Because the data mining companies collect and compile data that our government is forbidden from collecting directly without having to get legal authorization (like a warrant, for example). It's a workaround that circumvents controls meant to protect the privacy of individuals from their own rulers. Of course, I'm speaking from the perspective of someone in the USA; when it comes to civil rights, your mileage may vary.
That's odd...because many (if not most) states have systems whereby the actions in front of the car are recorded on video, and audio is captured from a microphone on the officer. The basis for this not needing a warrant is common law precedent that during a traffic stop there is no expectation of privacy...so how is there an expectation of privacy if it's the person being stopped who does the recording?
So either SSDs are really hard to erase, or really hard to recover. I'm so confused.
It's both. The internal optimization of SSDs includes, essentially, a degree of abstraction between what the computer says to do and what is actually done. With that kind of direct low-level control taken away, any task related to direct, granular control over what happens to what the computer sees as 'sectors' on a disk (but which don't really exist, since there is no such physical form) becomes unreliable. The reasons why it is unreliable differ between deletion and recovery, but the effect is the same and has the same basic root cause.
I've actually spotted an AT&T fanboi!
I can understand why parents would turn to police officers for some description of the threats out there. I get why they would want the people who deal with criminals to talk about the nature of the bad guys and how they operate. What I don't get is why parents would accept OPERATIONAL advice on how to behave towards their kids. The police are (duh) charged with the investigation of crimes and criminal suspects. This is a model for behavior which is unbelievably ill-suited for parenting.
Neither this law, nor the original version of it, would have retroactive applicability; in other words, you can't make something illegal today, and then prosecute the guy that did it yesterday. It's more like the early laws around computer crime, which came about not to prosecute people who had already been hacking, but instead came about because existing law didn't properly address something that should already have been criminalized, in the eyes of the legislature.
Did anyone notice that the pic of Emil Protalinski (the guy whose ZDNet article was linked in the OP) looks like it could be the mug shot of the criminal in question? Not a good pic...
Can we photoshop off one of their hands?
He wouldn't catch flak for promoting one company (except by people with no understanding of business and the pressures on the press...) but would catch flak for naming names in the derogatory sense (especially if they're populated by overcaffeinated people with no understanding of business who are so touchy about the "S" word...).
So, helping set up an offshore call center is unethical. What about patronizing companies that have recently offshored a lot of their capabilities? Try going a day without giving business to such a company...pass up on the cheaper prices at Walmart, Target, etc. and buy only from local, American suppliers with no operations abroad that were set up as a cost savings measure. While you're at it, don't drive a car, ride a motorcycle or get on a bike.
I just find it unsettling that there's so much outcry about this on Slashdot when it comes to our jobs, but no mention of the fact that we're just the latest industry to have to face outsourcing. Where was the wailing before now?
For an entire planet...even taking into account the fact that oil consumption is growing, at a rapid rate...that isn't that much land. I almost wonder if the additional agricultural activity that would result would help offset global warming a bit (since deforestation is a factor). Of course, all of this depends entirely on the notion that this isn't all vaporware or a scam, which statistically it most likely is. Most 'deus ex machina' breakthroughs that come from small, unheard-of companies out of the blue are, unfortunately.
Great...so now there'll be lots of cheap fuel to power my Voller flying car and my jetpack that I use to go to work every day! Not to mention the cheap electricity that won't make me give up my Phantom game console...
Of course it's cheaper. Netflix is just the latest to reap the benefits of cheaper delivery via digital means. Just as email is cheaper than snail-mail, spam is cheaper (unfortunately) to send than promotional mailers, Craigslist is cheaper to post on than putting flyers up in a neighborhood...it's even cheaper to use virtual tape drives for backup, and digitally replicate the backups over WAN links than it is to send tapes via UPS, overall. The examples of this seem endless, and there are many reasons why it happens that way.
In our datacenters (I work for a major IT company) we've actually done some research on running data centers at higher temperatures overall. The funny thing that came out of this...in the attempt to figure out where the magical "65 degrees" requirement came from, we had to do a lot of digging. It turns out that the requirement came from old APC UPS systems, which mandated that environmental temperature. We're discovering that data centers can be run WAY warmer than that with no ill effect, provided you still have good airflow.
This isn't even remotely true. I've done a lot of work on data leakage (related to propietary information) in dozens of companies, all of which in the Fortune 100. Doing this kind of work from a network-centric perspective (as I did it) involves tracking the relationships between everything...every inbound and outbound packet is analyzed and cataloged. I never once saw demographic data going to Microsoft or anyone else, and certainly not with the consistency that would be present from it happening everywhere there were Windows OS variants. Does a cellular-only version do it? I don't know...but the above accusation refers to "All of the Winddows OS's", and that's extremely far from the truth.
I see where the USAF is coming from on this one. For one thing, the fact that the information has been leaked doesn't make it unclassified; it's still classified. And as someone who holds a clearance, I've been advised not to go look at the data (aside from the fact that, as a person with access to classified materials, association in any form with WikiLeaks is inherently risky career-wise). But then, when I'm reading the Washington Post, I see a link to an interesting story...and reading the whole thing, I discover that it's from WikiLeaks only because they say so in the last paragraph! It's like being rickrolled in a way; if I had known that it was a WL-sourced story, I would not have read it. Same thing on the NY Times as well. If they'd put just a precursor to the byline, it'd be fine, but instead the only way to avoid accidentally violating the code of conduct I formally bound myself to, I have to avoid reading stories that have an international-affairs, national security or war-related bend to them. This is a way for the USAF to put pressure on them to at least make it easier for guys like me to toe the line.
out of fear in Moscow that WikiLeaks is prepared to release damaging personal information about Kremlin leaders
I wonder what the basis for that assessment is. My assumption would be that they're more interested in seeing what gets disclosed to them, instead of having to wait for the information to be released like everyone else. If you take that a step farther, they can potentially figure out who is talking to them in the hopes of recruiting them (nicely or otherwise) as assets for their own "wiki", so to say. I'd actually have been surprised if the FSB hadn't been observing WikiLeaks far before now.
Actually it does, that's the whole point. You have a controlled explosion in that it goes off when you want it to, not the bomber. Additionally you have placed barricades and other protective structures to minimize the damage.
Better explanation: when the bomb squad "detonates" a bomb, they don't blow it up in the traditional sense. What they do is put what's known as a 'water charge' by it, which does contain a small bomb and a fair amount of harmless water. The water cushions the blast enough that it doesn't cause what's known as a 'sympathetic detonation' but still carries enough kinetic effec to, in essence, tear the bad-guy bomb apart without causing it to explode as the terrorist/attacker/nutjob intended.
Besides, you don't sever a bridge support by putting a small bomb near one side of it...you need two explosive charges against it, offset from each other to create a shearing effect. Those suckers are a lot tougher than they look. (Yeah, I have a merit badge in demolitions...my Boy Scout troop was a little more aggressive than most...)
Simple: their customer service is WAY more self serving than that of any real bank!
The DHS defines "Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources" on this website: http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/gc_1189168948944.shtm ("Key Resources" refer to things like national monuments that, while relatively irrelevant to the operation of the nation, are nonetheless impossible to replace and likely targets of attack.)
It's not a matter of being a vendor to government, it's a matter of being an industry (not a company) where industry-wide failures would result in material impact to the security of the country due to interdependencies. If there's an impact to the petroleum products distribution infrastructure, for example, then there's no gasoline, avgas, or diesel. Trucks can't resupply supermarkets, planes can't deliver goods or passengers, and in short order, first responders (cops, firemen, ambulances) can't travel except on a very limited basis. That doesn't make the gas station a critical asset, since an awful lot of gas stations can get shut down without mucking up the works...people will just have longer lines as they go to fewer stations. But, on the other hand, the petroleum depots...well, since one of those services an enormous area...one of those is quite critical.
This bill doesn't put DHS in charge of anything at all, any more than the IRS is in charge of your finances just because you have to report income, or the SEC runs private companies because they have to comply with certain regulations to maintain transparency. What it does is mandate a NIST 800-53-based approach to securing the networks. That approach actually works pretty well, but it's a fair amount of work since you end up looking at groups of systems in terms of the processes they perform together (like a specfic database server, the middleware server that accesses it for a specific application, and the web server that provides a presentation layer for the middleware) when thinking about security.
The problem with this bill isn't the standards that it mandates, or that DHS would be the entity yelling at companies for failing to comply...it's that "Critical Infrastructure" industries, in legislative terms, refers to 17 different industries, which in combination are an ENORMOUS amount of our economy. One of them, for example, is the IT sector. Dropping a regulatory requirement like this on all of them at once, simultaneously, will be very good for people who do security consulting for a living (like me) but will be hell on the thousands of companies that will have to scramble to get into compliance.
TSA...Your safety is our excuse.
Let's face it; he hacked the email account of a Vice Presidential candidate. Regardless of how one feels about Sarah Palin (I can't stand her myself...the things she says makes me want to slam my head in a file cabinet drawer) it's not rocket science to recognize that what he did is a bit more severe (and consequence-prone) than going after your typical person. He should consider himself lucky that he only got a year, really...I figured they'd do much worse.
When I went to click on the link, in my mind was a curious tension of expectations. Would it be like Jay and Silent Bob in "Mallrats"? Like the various teenagers in "Kickass"? Like the moderately-capable guys in hockey pads in "The Dark Knight"? Or something entirely different altogether, some wonderful and amazing surprise of how people can leverage technology and creativity as force multipliers to do good?
However, after reading this and looking at the gear, all that comes to mind is..."What a bunch of douchebags. Ugh."